Home » Moveable shed proves to be a ‘wheelie’ hard case
News Top News

Moveable shed proves to be a ‘wheelie’ hard case

ATTEMPTS by Pembrokeshire County Council to prosecute a Milford Haven man under planning enforcement law have stalled after it was decided that the case was too complicated for Magistrates to deal with.

James Kershaw of Lower Priory, appeared at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Monday (Mar 11) to confirm his name and address.

The Court heard that Kershaw was charged with failing to comply with an enforcement notice served by the local authority on September 26, 2016.

The case related to a large shed that Kershaw constructed in his driveway – pictured here on wheels during the recent flood – without the relevant permission of the planning authorities.

Defiant: James Kershaw

Kershaw’s property, makes up part of the ruins of Pill Priory, and in his front garden stands the priory arch – a well known Milford landmark – which is a CADW protected monument.

Mr. Kershaw told the Herald that he has informed council solicitor of the grounds of his defence to the case, he said that having raised the shed off the ground and put it onto wheels it “was no longer development, but a chattel”.

The crux of the argument it seems, is that now the shed is on wheels it is now a mobile unit, not covered by planning regulations.

At court the clerk Michael Cray said “There are various issues on points of law before we are ready for this trial, I also recommend that a District Judge be assigned to this case as there are various points of law that are quite complicated – and there are likely to be cases stated from the High Court”.

Magistrates decided to adjourn the case until May 9 at 10am.

The court ordered that the defendant serve on Pembrokeshire County Council and the Court, within 21 days, skeleton arguments detailing his defence to the allegation in full.

online casinos UK

The prosecution was given 14 days thereafter to give their response to the skeleton argument on the defendant and the Court.
Jonathan Webb was in court, but clarified that he was not there in his capacity to act for Kershaw, but as a court appointed solicitor there only for the purposes of enabling cross-examination of witnesses.

Author